Hillsborough — nobody yet to blame

[Churchill]

He has been tried twice thanks to a change in the Law, not so long ago you could not try anyone for the same offence twice, now you can if new compelling evidence that was not put before the Court the first time comes to light at a later date.



The Crown ( Prosecution) have done that and a new Jury has found him not guilty again, the Crown cannot keep trying the same person over and over again until they get the result you want.



He was tried for manslaughter the Crown based their case of gross neglect , the Crown could not prove it  like it of not he is innocent the evidence was not strong enough against him to prove beyond all shadow of doubt that he is guilty.

[johnofgwent]

It was an accident of bad planning resulting in the tragic deaths of a large number of people.



To be found guilty of manslaughter there are certain matters which need to be proven,



1. is a non starter as there was obviously no intent to murder.

2. Gross negligence could apply but it has to be more than an error of judgement or mistake.

3. is a non starter.



So he's innocent after 2 trials.  People can cry justice over and over, but this is justice.

Well, did you read this ...





https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/gross-negligence-manslaughter">https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/g ... nslaughter">https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/gross-negligence-manslaughter



The Law

The ingredients of the offence were authoritatively set out in the leading case of R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171in which Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC at page 187 said the following:



"In my opinion, the law as stated in these two authorities Bateman (1925) 19 Cr. App. R. 8 and Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576 is satisfactory as providing a proper basis for describing the crime of involuntary manslaughter. Since the decision in Andrews was a decision of your Lordships' house, it remains the most authoritative statement of the present law which I have been able to find and it has not been departed from. On this basis, in my opinion the ordinary principles of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died. If such breach of duty is established the next question is whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim. If so, the jury must go on to consider whether that breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime."



In order to prove the offence, the prosecution must therefore establish the following elements:



a) The defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased;



b) By a negligent act or omission the defendant was in breach of the duty which he owed to the deceased;



c) The negligent act or omission was a cause of the death; and



d) The negligence, which was a cause of the death, amounts to gross negligence and is therefore a crime;



More recently, the elements of manslaughter by gross negligence were stated concisely by the President of the Queen's Bench Division in R v Rudling [2016] EWCA Crim 741at paragraph 18 as follows:



We can summarise the law shortly. The critical ingredients of gross negligence manslaughter can be taken from R v Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1994] QB 302 in this court and Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 99 Crim App R 362 in the House of Lords as well as R v Misra [2005] 1 Cr App R 21. They can be summarised as being the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission (see Adomako [2005] 1 Cr App Rep at 369). The elements of GNM were set out by the House of Lords in R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.





The reality then is that far from needing to prove any attempt to murder, what must be provenis that the person had a duty of care to the deceased, which they were SO negligent in performing, their gross negligence becomes a criminal act.



The man himself, after the unlawful killing verdict, confessed on broadcast media to having been responsible to that very extent.



We should hang his defence lawyer, get someone competent to prosecute, and bring him back for a third go.



After all, Labour would do so were his views incompatible with their political ideology.

[patman post]

Ninety-six fans died in the Hillsborough disaster, but the inquests heard their deaths could have been prevented if authorities had not made a number of mistakes. It seems Duckenfield was only one person in a whole raft of organisations that made mistakes...



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-35462767">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35462767

[Churchill]

So the same supporters who caused the Heysel disaster had nothing to do with Hillsborough. The millions of pounds funded by the tax payer in order the families of the deceased can be appeased has been wasted. Some years ago it became a sin to even consider that the thousands of fans who turned up and got into Hillsborough without a ticket had nothing to do with it. Of course, the majority of people who were alive around this time knew better. It was a sad event, and we all know that. The vast majority of us also know that it was a combination of events, and in reality there is no single person to blame. Can we now move on, because personally I am pretty fed up with it

Yes it happened why we all have different ideas why, IMO it was the mob who ran into the stadium with no thought for their own safety or the safety of others if they had not done what they did it would not have happened  , time to move on

[Wiggles]

We do know the victims and fans were blamed almost immediately for their own behaviour and fate. And stemming from that came almost 30 years of insensitive dealings by officials with relatives and friends. The fact it has taken all that time to get anywhere near resolution and get anything positive out of the disaster should be enough of an indictement...

So the same supporters who caused the Heysel disaster had nothing to do with Hillsborough. The millions of pounds funded by the tax payer in order the families of the deceased can be appeased has been wasted. Some years ago it became a sin to even consider that the thousands of fans who turned up and got into Hillsborough without a ticket had nothing to do with it. Of course, the majority of people who were alive around this time knew better. It was a sad event, and we all know that. The vast majority of us also know that it was a combination of events, and in reality there is no single person to blame. Can we now move on, because personally I am pretty fed up with it

[Churchill]

Suggest you read the Macpherson report and the Stockwell inquiry — you might find some facts hard to deal with...

All ready had in the past, perhaps you may like to consider the difference of a report/inquiry and what is evidence which is vital and required in a Criminal Trial to prove guilt  beyond any shadow of doubt

[patman post]

I read the papers I remember all the speculation that went on by the media, thankfully criminal investigators do not deal in speculation but hard facts

Suggest you read the Macpherson report and the Stockwell inquiry — you might find some facts hard to deal with...

[Churchill]

We do know the victims and fans were blamed almost immediately for their own behaviour and fate. And stemming from that came almost 30 years of insensitive dealings by officials with relatives and friends. The fact it has taken all that time to get anywhere near resolution and get anything positive out of the disaster should be enough of an indictement...

I read the papers I remember all the speculation that went on by the media, thankfully criminal investigators do not deal in speculation but hard facts

[patman post]

If a cover up by Yorkshire Police did happen or not has not been proved yet as far as I am aware unless you know different

We do know the victims and fans were blamed almost immediately for their own behaviour and fate. And stemming from that came almost 30 years of insensitive dealings by officials with relatives and friends. The fact it has taken all that time to get anywhere near resolution and get anything positive out of the disaster should be enough of an indictement...

[Churchill]

Perhaps the whole 30-year debacle would have been avoided (or the grief lessened and not so intense for so long) if the initial reaction to the original disaster had not been to cover up mistakes and spread lies about victims and fans, and for officialdom to treat friends and relatives with respect...

If a cover up by Yorkshire Police did happen or not has not been proved yet as far as I am aware unless you know different

[patman post]

What would you have the Crown do ? convict him to please the relatives and friends of the people who lost their lives ?

Perhaps the whole 30-year debacle would have been avoided (or the grief lessened and not so intense for so long) if the initial reaction to the original disaster had not been to cover up mistakes and spread lies about victims and fans, and for officialdom to treat friends and relatives with respect...

[Churchill]

I believe that a trial relating to charges alleging a Cover Up by Yorkshire Police over Hillsborough is set for next year

[Barry]

More here from the lawyers about possible civil action for misfeasance in public office.

https://www.saunders.co.uk/civil-liberties/hillsborough.html">//https://www.saunders.co.uk/civil-liberties/hillsborough.html

[Churchill]

What would you have the Crown do ? convict him to please the relatives and friends of the people who lost their lives ?



I agree with you on the new legislation

[patman post]

I doubt the victim's relatives and friends or survivors of Hillsborough will feel comforted by any official attempt to address their anger and grief. But the rest of us might find some satisfaction in a few positive outcomes after 30 years of "mistakes".

A report linked to below is worth reading for anyone interested in how officialdom deals with tragedies affecting ordinary people.



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hillsborough-stadium-disaster-lessons-that-must-be-learnt">https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -be-learnt">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hillsborough-stadium-disaster-lessons-that-must-be-learnt



This government-commissioned report includes the words of Theresa May, who as Home Secretary told the 2016 Police Federation Conference to:



'Remember Hillsborough. Let it be a touchstone for everything you do. Never forget that those who died in that disaster or the 27 years of hurt endured by their families and loved ones. Let the hostility, the obfuscation and the attempts to blame the fans serve as a reminder of the need for change. Make sure your institutions, whose job it is to protect the public, never again fail to put the public first. And put professionalism and integrity at the heart of every decision, every interaction, and every dealing with the public you have.'



Since the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel was published, the police disciplinary system has also been reformed. Since May 2015 police misconduct hearings have been held in public, and they are now chaired by independent, legally-qualified people.

This brings policing into line with other professions and also addresses long-standing concerns about the ability of the police to effectively police themselves.

Disciplinary proceedings into gross misconduct can now continue to a conclusion even if the officer in question leaves the police force while proceedings are ongoing or even before allegations are made or — if thought serious enough — regardless of how long after a person's resignation or retirement the matters in question come to light.

(Abridged from chapters 4.22, 4.23 and 4.24)



I believe these should be positive reforms...